start_teaching_session

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Solution-hidden' does disclose one meaningful trait (the answer is withheld from the learner), but nothing is said about persistence, learner state side effects, permissions, or what starting a cycle implies for subsequent calls.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. It is arguably too terse for a three-parameter session-start tool, but there is no wasted language.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with zero annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an extremely terse sentence, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for three parameters (fen, history, learner_id), and the description names none of them. 'Concept-specific learning objective' hints at session semantics but does not clarify that fen is a chess position, or what history/learner_id control.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a ... teaching cycle') and adds the concept-specific objective framing, so an agent understands the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings like start_lesson or advance_lesson, and the term 'solution-hidden' is unexplained jargon.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many adjacent teaching tools (start_lesson, create_tutor_turn, advance_lesson, get_teaching_hint). No preconditions or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer intent entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.